Maneuverability

[Dagger1 7]

Hi everybody....

 

In a scale from 1 to 10. ten represents the most maneuverable in a dogfight how do u rate the following jetfighters?

Lets say

Mig-21BIS
Mig-23 MLD
Mirage IIIC
Mirage F1C
F-15A
F-18A
F-14A
F-4E
F-8C
F-100C
Lightning
Tornado ADV
SAAB DRAKEN
SAAB VIGGEN
Kfir C-7

Fighter pilots openion is appreciated.
 

[thodouras95 25]

Tornado ADV 

[Capitaine Vengeur 263]

I still own an old (1985) classic boardgame by Avalon Hill, Flight Leader, giving the following Turn values for these planes, ranging from A to E (A= the best):

 

Mig-21BIS - - - - - B
Mig-23 MLD- - - - D
Mirage IIIC- - - - - B
Mirage F1C- - - - B
F-15A- - - - - - - - B
F-18A- - - - - - - - A
F-14A- - - - - - - - B
F-4E- - - - - - - - - C

F-8C- - - - - - - - - B
F-100C- - - - - - - C
Lightning- - - - - - B
Tornado ADV- - - B
SAAB DRAKEN- - B
SAAB VIGGEN- - B 
Kfir C-7- - - - - - - B

 

On A, you would find the F-86, the F-16, the MiG-15 & -17, the MiG-29 (the Su-27 is B)... On E, you would find the F-104, the MiG-25 & -31, the Yak-25, the Tu-28...

Edited May 11, 2014 by Capitaine Vengeur

[Boresight 51]

Hello Dagger1, interesting question...

 

- For the record, I'm just at jet fighter / aviation enthusiast - my opinion is based on many years of flight sims; PC games; movies; internet; magazines; etc.

 

- I do have in count many parameters as: t/w ratio; acceleration; wing loading; sustained & instantaneous turn rate; airframe design.

 

- 10 (ten), as being the absolute maximum just for this list.

 

 

Answered on the citation.

 

 

Hi everybody....

 

In a scale from 1 to 10. ten represents the most maneuverable in a dogfight how do u rate the following jetfighters?

Lets say

Mig-21BIS                   6

Mig-23 MLD                 7

Mirage IIIC                   6

Mirage F1C                  8

F-15A                          7

F-18A                         10

F-14A                          7

F-4E                            6

F-8C                                         ?

F-100C                                      ?

Lightning                      5

Tornado ADV                5

SAAB DRAKEN            6

SAAB VIGGEN             7

Kfir C-7                         8

Fighter pilots openion is appreciated.
 

 

EDIT: the original numbers have been changed.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Boresight

[Dagger1 7]

I still own an old (1985) classic boardgame by Avalon Hill, Flight Leader, giving the following Turn values for these planes, ranging from A to E (A= the best):

 

Mig-21BIS - - - - - B

Mig-23 MLD- - - - D

Mirage IIIC- - - - - B

Mirage F1C- - - - B

F-15A- - - - - - - - B

F-18A- - - - - - - - A

F-14A- - - - - - - - B

F-4E- - - - - - - - - C

F-8C- - - - - - - - - B

F-100C- - - - - - - C

Lightning- - - - - - B

Tornado ADV- - - B

SAAB DRAKEN- - B

SAAB VIGGEN- - B 

Kfir C-7- - - - - - - B

 

On A, you would find the F-86, the F-16, the MiG-15 & -17, the MiG-29 (the Su-27 is B)... On E, you would find the F-104, the MiG-25 & -31, the Yak-25, the Tu-28...

Hi there wow 1985 I was just watching a youtube for that game sounds really complicated interesting ratings

Hello Dagger1, interesting question...

 

- For the record, I'm just at jet fighter / aviation enthusiast - my opinion is based on many years of flight sims; PC games; movies; internet; magazines; etc.

 

- I do have in count many parameters as: t/w ratio; acceleration; wing loading; sustained & instantaneous turn rate; airframe design.

 

- 10 (ten), as being the absolute maximum just for this list.

 

 

Answered on the citation.

 

hmmmmm interesting opinion I thought the Mig-21 would score 7 ! perhaps as it had a powerful engine and a somewhat favorable wing loading coupled with a light weight  

 

also the draken I thought u would give it a higher rating. I saw a draken doing the cobra maneuver youtube. it also had a large wing with powerful engine = good instantaneous turn rate ya !!!

Edited May 11, 2014 by Dagger1

[Boresight 51]

Hi there wow 1985 I was just watching a youtube for that game sounds really complicated interesting ratings

 

hmmmmm interesting opinion I thought the Mig-21 would score 7 ! perhaps as it had a powerful engine and a somewhat favorable wing loading coupled with a light weight  

 

also the draken I thought u would give it a higher rating. I saw a draken doing the cobra maneuver youtube. it also had a large wing with powerful engine = good instantaneous turn rate ya !!!

 

 

 

Yes, as there are many variables that one must consider to qualify a jet as more or less "maneuverable", trying to do it, is not so simple.

 

For ex. what you say about the MiG-21 BIS is true, but then, there are other factors, like:

 

How fast does it bleed speed, and how this effects it's sustained turn rate...

 

 

EDIT: Even now, I'm thinking about some numbers I gave... 

Edited May 11, 2014 by Boresight

[Caesar 305]

Mig-21BIS     0-10

Mig-23 MLD  0-10

Mirage IIIC    0-10

Mirage F1C  0-10

F-15A           0-10

F-18A           0-10

F-14A           0-10

F-4E            0-10

F-8C            0-10

F-100C        0-10

Lightning     0-10

Tornado ADV  0-10

SAAB DRAKEN 0-10

SAAB VIGGEN  0-10

Kfir C-7          0-10

 

Because it's the pilot/aircrew who decides a dogfight, not the airframe.

 

And if you're looking for fighter pilot opinions, I've found they're all going to be different, especially compared to their airframe.  The folks I've spoken to mostly have time in the F-8, F-4, F-5, A-4, and F-14 (some F/A-18).  Whatever airframe you're flying, that's the best one, and inter-service, and inter-platform rivalries will always show through.  An F-14 pilot isn't going to rate an F-15 very high, nor is an F-15 pilot going to do the same for an F-14.  It'd be like asking an English archer his opinion of French heavy cavalry and vice-versa.  Then, someone will inevitably pull up "the charts".  Regardless that many (not all) of these are protected under ITAR and by distribution statements (or whatever a given country's equivalent is), they'll get posted, and yea-verily, we have the holy grail here.  But then you compare them to ACMI/TACTS data, or what a pilot tells you, and that airplane that's not supposed to be flying there, or pulling that many "g", or have that much alpha loaded up is doing so.  Why is he sustaining 6.6g at that altitude and airspeed, he's only supposed to have 5.9!  How come he's rolling that fast, he can't do that!  But this aircraft has better thrust to weight, so it has better acceleration.  Oh wait, it doesn't, because that one has a smaller drag profile and a better thrust to drag ratio, so it actually accelerates better at this altitude, but not that one.  Well, the CHARTS say this aircraft and that one are generally comparable, but then a pilot with experience in both will say "comparable aircraft a is always going to wax comparable aircraft b at any altitude or airspeed, even with a mediocre crew" - but...but the CHARTS!

 

Then we have to consider that air combat is a three-dimensional environment with aircraft maneuvering relative to each other across all possible planes of motion.  Perhaps an F-4E can't sustain its turn very well compared to a MiG-17F, but now the Phantom aircrew takes the fight into the vertical, and the MiG-17F can't fight in the vertical as well as an F-4E.  Or maybe, the F-4E driver works on disengaging, and the fight gets fast; well now the MiG driver is in trouble in a turn since he doesn't have hydraulically boosted controls and can maybe sustain about 3.5g compared to the F-4E's 6 or whatever, and now suddenly the F-4E is the better turner.  What happens when, say, you hit the merge, start turning into each other, but a cloud obscures your view?  Say you're flying a MiG-29 against an F-5E.  Your Fulcrum should have better sustained and instantaneous turning as well as better vertical performance, but you lose that tiny little F-5E, which can burn energy and pitch its nose like a bastard.  He sacrifices energy for position, knowing you can't see to your six o'clock, excepting 6-high.  You don't know where he went, and so you're no longer effectively maneuvering against him.  You have an idea where he went, maybe, and so you wrench the aircraft in to a harsh 9g turn, letting off a bit to look up against the sky, and, whoops, he's not there.  You get the call "tracking guns on the MiG-29 in a right-hand turn, angels 15" - you lost sight, you couldn't see out the back, and if the fight were real, you'd have a lot of 20mm holes in your jet regardless of the fact that it's supposed to be the better performer.  That's not just some BS I came up with, that's based on a number of fights I've been told about with a variety of aircraft, including the MiG-29.

 

And then you get into some more examples.  A pair of F-4D aircrews with mounted centerline cannons beating a pair of experienced F-15C drivers up at 33k feet where the F-4D should get smoked every time.  A pair of F-14A aircrews defeating a pair of F-16 pilots because the fight got so slow and the F-14's dropped their landing flaps to out-pitch the Vipers.  MiG-29G pilots getting beat up on by F-4F aircrews because they were too reliant on GCI and can't see out the back of the jet (lose sight, lose fight!). How many times have aggressor A-4, F-5, Kfir, etc. crews bagged F-14's, F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's in simulated dogfights?

 

It all comes down to the aircrew, training, tactics, techniques and procedures, and sometimes blind, stupid luck.  Each airplane you have listed there can be flown brilliantly or like a brick, it all depends on the AIRCREW.

[Boresight 51]

 

Mig-21BIS     0-10

Mig-23 MLD  0-10

Mirage IIIC    0-10

Mirage F1C  0-10

F-15A           0-10

F-18A           0-10

F-14A           0-10

F-4E            0-10

F-8C            0-10

F-100C        0-10

Lightning     0-10

Tornado ADV  0-10

SAAB DRAKEN 0-10

SAAB VIGGEN  0-10

Kfir C-7          0-10

 

Because it's the pilot/aircrew who decides a dogfight, not the airframe.

 

And if you're looking for fighter pilot opinions, I've found they're all going to be different, especially compared to their airframe.  The folks I've spoken to mostly have time in the F-8, F-4, F-5, A-4, and F-14 (some F/A-18).  Whatever airframe you're flying, that's the best one, and inter-service, and inter-platform rivalries will always show through.  An F-14 pilot isn't going to rate an F-15 very high, nor is an F-15 pilot going to do the same for an F-14.  It'd be like asking an English archer his opinion of French heavy cavalry and vice-versa.  Then, someone will inevitably pull up "the charts".  Regardless that many (not all) of these are protected under ITAR and by distribution statements (or whatever a given country's equivalent is), they'll get posted, and yea-verily, we have the holy grail here.  But then you compare them to ACMI/TACTS data, or what a pilot tells you, and that airplane that's not supposed to be flying there, or pulling that many "g", or have that much alpha loaded up is doing so.  Why is he sustaining 6.6g at that altitude and airspeed, he's only supposed to have 5.9!  How come he's rolling that fast, he can't do that!  But this aircraft has better thrust to weight, so it has better acceleration.  Oh wait, it doesn't, because that one has a smaller drag profile and a better thrust to drag ratio, so it actually accelerates better at this altitude, but not that one.  Well, the CHARTS say this aircraft and that one are generally comparable, but then a pilot with experience in both will say "comparable aircraft a is always going to wax comparable aircraft b at any altitude or airspeed, even with a mediocre crew" - but...but the CHARTS!

 

Then we have to consider that air combat is a three-dimensional environment with aircraft maneuvering relative to each other across all possible planes of motion.  Perhaps an F-4E can't sustain its turn very well compared to a MiG-17F, but now the Phantom aircrew takes the fight into the vertical, and the MiG-17F can't fight in the vertical as well as an F-4E.  Or maybe, the F-4E driver works on disengaging, and the fight gets fast; well now the MiG driver is in trouble in a turn since he doesn't have hydraulically boosted controls and can maybe sustain about 3.5g compared to the F-4E's 6 or whatever, and now suddenly the F-4E is the better turner.  What happens when, say, you hit the merge, start turning into each other, but a cloud obscures your view?  Say you're flying a MiG-29 against an F-5E.  Your Fulcrum should have better sustained and instantaneous turning as well as better vertical performance, but you lose that tiny little F-5E, which can burn energy and pitch its nose like a bastard.  He sacrifices energy for position, knowing you can't see to your six o'clock, excepting 6-high.  You don't know where he went, and so you're no longer effectively maneuvering against him.  You have an idea where he went, maybe, and so you wrench the aircraft in to a harsh 9g turn, letting off a bit to look up against the sky, and, whoops, he's not there.  You get the call "tracking guns on the MiG-29 in a right-hand turn, angels 15" - you lost sight, you couldn't see out the back, and if the fight were real, you'd have a lot of 20mm holes in your jet regardless of the fact that it's supposed to be the better performer.  That's not just some BS I came up with, that's based on a number of fights I've been told about with a variety of aircraft, including the MiG-29.

 

And then you get into some more examples.  A pair of F-4D aircrews with mounted centerline cannons beating a pair of experienced F-15C drivers up at 33k feet where the F-4D should get smoked every time.  A pair of F-14A aircrews defeating a pair of F-16 pilots because the fight got so slow and the F-14's dropped their landing flaps to out-pitch the Vipers.  MiG-29G pilots getting beat up on by F-4F aircrews because they were too reliant on GCI and can't see out the back of the jet (lose sight, lose fight!). How many times have aggressor A-4, F-5, Kfir, etc. crews bagged F-14's, F-15's, F-16's and F/A-18's in simulated dogfights?

 

It all comes down to the aircrew, training, tactics, techniques and procedures, and sometimes blind, stupid luck.  Each airplane you have listed there can be flown brilliantly or like a brick, it all depends on the AIRCREW.

 

 

Hello Caesar,

 

I do take your opinion in high regard, (by the way even a little ago, I was just reading one of your many articles anout the F-14 Tomcat).

And you're right.

 

( Since you guys released TMF F-14 Tomcat Superpack - with actually working AIM-9 seeker head symbology, things where never the same again -  it kept me following this outstanding sim!    )

 

However, Dagger1 tryed to get some indications about the dogfighting "potential" each one of those fighters have, given "all the rest being equal" - including the pilot...

So the numbers are just a rough estimate - I would like to see your's.

Edited May 11, 2014 by Boresight

[B52STRATO 215]

As a 2nd-Gen' Harrier pilot, in a typical British humor, so aptly said: "once my hand over my nozzles control, I'm the nimblest.".

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

#1 Lockheed F-12  = 10

 

Lacking that, uh, ... F-14A, then MiG-25/MiG-31.

 

finish Teh Dogfight at 50 miles,

 

 

fly home for coffee & crumpets.

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

Now...just a *quick* guess, to compare with far more brainier souls here...

 

Mig-21BIS -- 4
Mig-23 MLD -- 2
Mirage IIIC -- 6
Mirage F1C -- 5
F-15A -- 8
F-18A -- 7
F-14A -- 6
F-4E -- 4
F-8C -- 4
F-100C -- 3
Lightning -- 1
Tornado ADV -- 7
SAAB DRAKEN -- 6
SAAB VIGGEN -- 7
Kfir C-7 -- 6

 

The Mirages 3 vs 1c/kfir I'm not sure about. And Viggen I know little about, but I'm leaving them at my first guess.

[Caesar 305]

Well, since you asked, here's my thoughts.  Understand that my original thought on the matter still stands: the aircrew decides the victor, and any pilot/aircrew of any aircraft on this list can be beaten by the pilot/aircrew of another aircraft on this list.

 

First, we need a baseline.  Consider that the F-4 platform was what the next generation of American fighters wound up replacing, and that it was the platform that coexisted with (and indeed went up against) many of the other fighters on this list, and we can use the F-4E as the baseline "5" fighter.  5 is dead average, and given that, we might not see a 10.  Let's take a look at the aircraft:

 

MiG-21Bis

The MiG-21 is an agile aircraft with better pitch and slow-speed performance than the F-4E, but at the same time does not fare as well at higher speeds, and cannot sustain as high a turn rate as the F-4, based upon some of the released charts that I don't trust very much.  It also cannot sustain its energy at slow speeds particularly well compared to the F-4, but it can pitch very well, meaning it can get position with its nose better with an instantaneous energy sacrifice for position.  Herein lies the problem: if the F-4 is performing a sustained turning fight, and the MiG-21Bis tries to do the same, the F-4 is going to win.  If the MiG-21 goes for an angles fight, or does initial positioning to get himself above the F-4, or manages to get the F-4 slow, he has better pulling authority, and can get nose on while the F-4 runs into its lift limits.  If he tries to fight the F-4 in the vertical, he will be unable to sustain the fight due to lower thrust to weight (as against an F-14 or F-15).  I would then rate the MiG-21Bis a "5" - it can't stay in a sustained fight with an F-4, but its aerodynamic qualities and slow speed capabilities make the fight a bit of a toss-up between the two.

 

MiG-23MLD

As I understand it, the MiG-23MLD had several innovations and control modifications to make the aircraft more maneuverable at higher angles of attack.  Nevertheless, those summed up to be a dog-toothed wing and avionics changes, while the wing proper, horizontal tail and fuselage remained largely unchanged.  The aircraft may be less prone to departure, but it isn't going to be significantly better in basic maneuverability (i.e. max lift, sustained turning, etc).  As such, considering most models of the MiG-23 are supposed to be comparable to the F-4, and declassified reports say the same, I'd consider the MiG-23MLD to be a "5" aircraft as well.  Perhaps it won't depart once it hits 15 units AoA, but the design changes are not significant enough to put the bird into a new class of fighter.

 

Mirage IIIC

The Mirage IIIC is another aircraft that has similar sustained turning to the F-4 at high speeds, but surprisingly worse at slower speeds.  On the other hand, like the MiG-21, the Mirage IIIC can out-pitch the F-4 at slower speeds, and so could feasibly win if the pilot works the angles right.  Still a bit of a toss-up, so I'd give it a 5.

 

Mirage F1C

The Mirage F1C is not an aircraft I know very much about, but based on its loaded weight compared to its static engine thrust and wing size, it has both worse thrust to weight and worse wing loading compared to the F-4E at combat weight.  What this tells me is that its vertical performance will be worse and its sustained turning performance will likely be lower, but I don't know enough about its pitch and lift limits to know if, like the MiG-21, it could out fight the F-4 with angles.  As such, I can't give any confidence in any rating and would just default to 5.

 

F-15A

The F-15A is unique as the only fighter in this list to have a better than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio at combat weight.  It has significantly better aerodynamics than the F-4E, a lifting body fuselage and large wing, which work together to give the F-15 lower wing loading once it enters a turn.  It can sustain higher "g" than an F-4 at any altitude or airspeed, out accelerate most of the fighters on this list (dependent on starting altitude/airspeed), and out pitch a good number as well at lower airspeeds.  The raw power of the engines allows the aircraft to enter into a loop at very slow speeds (~100KIAS) based on test data.  I'd give the F-15A an 8.

 

F/A-18A

The F/A-18A is one of the only aircraft on this list with a fly-by-wire control system and is renowned for its slow speed handling.  The aircraft also has good sustained turning at higher speeds and significantly better pitch authority at slower speeds than the F-4E.  I'd probably give the F/A-18 an 8 or 9.

 

F-14A

The F-14A is another fighter with a lifting body fuselage, but also features wing-length flaps and slats and the variable-geometry wing.  Its aerodynamics are excellent, and even with a loadout 2000 pounds above combat weight (over 36,000 pounds more than a MiG-21Bis with only a gun and 50% fuel), will out-sustain turn and out-pitch either the Bis or the F-4E, and will do so some 120 knots slower, meaning it will both out-rate and out-radius either aircraft.  If the Tomcat crew drops the "big boys" (wing-length flaps and slats to "landing" configuration), the aircraft gains massive pitch authority and exceptional sustained slow-speed flying capability.  This also provides an advantage against the MiG-21, which can fly at 70KIAS, nose up, flaps down - the F-14A will do the same at 60KIAS, and when a Red Eagle driver flying a MiG-21 tried this against an F-14A, since it had always worked in the past, he was quite surprised to hear the gun call when the F-14 driver did the same.  Given these performance differentials, I'd give the F-14A an 8.

 

F-8C

The Crusader is one of those aircraft for which there was inter-platform rivalry.  Generally, the F-8 drivers could beat the F-4 aircrews in a dogfight, but this was largely because the F-8 still carried four guns and short-range missiles, meaning its crews still had to train to dogfight, while the F-4's largely focused on interception and long-range shooting (a point brought up by several pilots from the Vietnam era with experience in both jets).  When F-8 pilots got into F-4's, they had little trouble defeating the F-8 by using the F-4's better power and the vertical plane; keeping the energy up, they could run their old mount out of smack and shoot it down. That said, the F-8's good insantaneous turning capability and slightly, but not significantly worse sustained turning capability still makes the F-8 a competitor against the F-4.  I'd rate it a 5.

 

F-100C

Going back to the century-series, this is one of the aircraft I'd rate lower than the F-4 due to its slow-speed instability and poor thrust to weight ratio.  While the F-4 may have been somewhat unforgiving at slow speed, it was an improvement over the F-100C (Sabre Dance, anyone?).  The F-100C's its wing loading is comparable to the F-4's, but its poor performance at slow speeds and higher angles of attack, poor sustained turning and vertical performance by comparison puts the F-100C below the Phantom. I'd give it a 3.

 

Lightning

The English Electric Lightning is another aircraft I don't know much about.  I know it was developed as an interceptor, could sustain speeds above Mach 1 without afterburner, had exceptional climb and acceleration characteristics due to a very low thrust-to-drag ratio, and comparable thrust-to-weight and wing loading to the F-4.  As such, I can't really rate it with any confidence, so given what I know I'd put it at 6 to 7.

 

Tornado ADV

The ADV was designed as an interceptor rather than a dogfighter, and even the Ministry of Defence has stated the type is not significantly superior to the Phantom in air defense.  It's wing loading is significantly worse than the F-4's at combat weight though its acceleration is superior and possibly its vertical performance.  I'd give the ADV something in the vicinity of 5.

 

Saab Viggen

I don't know too much about the Viggen, so can't assess it particularly well.  It has comparable wing loading and thrust to weight, but uses a delta wing and canards.  Based on the other deltas, it will likely out turn an F-4 instantaneously and based on its thrust to weight and wing loading, will probably sustain its turn about as well as an F-4, if not slightly better.  I'd give it a 7, but with low confidence.

 

Saab Draken

This is one of those aircraft that has very low wing loading, a fair thrust to weight ratio, and ridiculous pitch authority.  Given that its wing loading is akin to a MiG-17, but it has better thrust to weight, I'd estimate it could out-turn some of the Teen-series aircraft, like the MiG-17.  It also probably can't fight as well in the vertical, but its instantaneous turning, sustained turning and slow-speed would make the draken a powerful foe. I'd rate it a 8.

 

Kfir C7

The Kfir C7 was based on the Mirage 5, which itself was based on the Mirage III, but with some modifications, including the small canards for improved slow-speed and higher angle-of-attack performance.  It has similar wing loading and comparable thrust-to-weight at combat weight, but given that the IIIC has similar turning capabilities with worse thrust to weight and without the aerodynamic advances put into the Kfir compared to the F-4, I'd estimate the Kfir C7 is going to be a better instantaneous and sustained turner, and with similar vertical capabilities.  I'd put the Kfir C7 around 7.

 

Other aircraft for consideration would be the F-16, which I'd probably rate a 10, since it seems as though every pilot I've spoken to about their platform ALWAYS rates an F-16 as a difficult opponent.  An F-14B/D with the powerful GE engines and F-15C with the -229's I'd probably give a 9.  MiG-29 and Su-27 probably a 9.  MiG-17 a 5 or 4, since, although it may be a UFO in the ThirdWire world, pilots flying the F-4 found that exploiting the vertical plane would give them a massive advantage, and at high speeds, the -17 couldn't turn with them either.  So long as the F-4 driver didn't try to get into a slower speed turning fight, he always had an advantage.

[Boresight 51]

Now...just a *quick* guess, to compare with far more brainier souls here...

 

Mig-21BIS -- 4

Mig-23 MLD -- 2

Mirage IIIC -- 6

Mirage F1C -- 5

F-15A -- 8

F-18A -- 7

F-14A -- 6

F-4E -- 4

F-8C -- 4

F-100C -- 3

Lightning -- 1

Tornado ADV -- 7

SAAB DRAKEN -- 6

SAAB VIGGEN -- 7

Kfir C-7 -- 6

 

The Mirages 3 vs 1c/kfir I'm not sure about. And Viggen I know little about, but I'm leaving them at my first guess.

 

Hello Lexx,

 

The following comments are merely my opinion, and I can't write a better technical explanation than the one Caesar wrote, right above.

 

MiG-23 MLD - I don't think it should be so low " 2 ", as it's aerodinamics and t/w ratio aren't that bad

 

Mirage IIIC vs Mirage F1C - the F1C was desgined specifically to adress the maneuvering performance shortcomings with the previous delta airframe Mirages... so it shouldn't be below the IIIC.

 

Lightning - seam's a bit too low.

 

Tornado ADV - " 7 " is VERY high, as it was right from the beginning not intended to be a dogfighter, and not intended do deal with MiGs at close range - like said by it's british manufacturers.

[Boresight 51]

 

Well, since you asked, here's my thoughts.  Understand that my original thought on the matter still stands: the aircrew decides the victor, and any pilot/aircrew of any aircraft on this list can be beaten by the pilot/aircrew of another aircraft on this list.

 

First, we need a baseline.  Consider that the F-4 platform was what the next generation of American fighters wound up replacing, and that it was the platform that coexisted with (and indeed went up against) many of the other fighters on this list, and we can use the F-4E as the baseline "5" fighter.  5 is dead average, and given that, we might not see a 10.  Let's take a look at the aircraft:

 

MiG-21Bis

The MiG-21 is an agile aircraft with better pitch and slow-speed performance than the F-4E, but at the same time does not fare as well at higher speeds, and cannot sustain as high a turn rate as the F-4, based upon some of the released charts that I don't trust very much.  It also cannot sustain its energy at slow speeds particularly well compared to the F-4, but it can pitch very well, meaning it can get position with its nose better with an instantaneous energy sacrifice for position.  Herein lies the problem: if the F-4 is performing a sustained turning fight, and the MiG-21Bis tries to do the same, the F-4 is going to win.  If the MiG-21 goes for an angles fight, or does initial positioning to get himself above the F-4, or manages to get the F-4 slow, he has better pulling authority, and can get nose on while the F-4 runs into its lift limits.  If he tries to fight the F-4 in the vertical, he will be unable to sustain the fight due to lower thrust to weight (as against an F-14 or F-15).  I would then rate the MiG-21Bis a "5" - it can't stay in a sustained fight with an F-4, but its aerodynamic qualities and slow speed capabilities make the fight a bit of a toss-up between the two.

 

MiG-23MLD

As I understand it, the MiG-23MLD had several innovations and control modifications to make the aircraft more maneuverable at higher angles of attack.  Nevertheless, those summed up to be a dog-toothed wing and avionics changes, while the wing proper, horizontal tail and fuselage remained largely unchanged.  The aircraft may be less prone to departure, but it isn't going to be significantly better in basic maneuverability (i.e. max lift, sustained turning, etc).  As such, considering most models of the MiG-23 are supposed to be comparable to the F-4, and declassified reports say the same, I'd consider the MiG-23MLD to be a "5" aircraft as well.  Perhaps it won't depart once it hits 15 units AoA, but the design changes are not significant enough to put the bird into a new class of fighter.

 

Mirage IIIC

The Mirage IIIC is another aircraft that has similar sustained turning to the F-4 at high speeds, but surprisingly worse at slower speeds.  On the other hand, like the MiG-21, the Mirage IIIC can out-pitch the F-4 at slower speeds, and so could feasibly win if the pilot works the angles right.  Still a bit of a toss-up, so I'd give it a 5.

 

Mirage F1C

The Mirage F1C is not an aircraft I know very much about, but based on its loaded weight compared to its static engine thrust and wing size, it has both worse thrust to weight and worse wing loading compared to the F-4E at combat weight.  What this tells me is that its vertical performance will be worse and its sustained turning performance will likely be lower, but I don't know enough about its pitch and lift limits to know if, like the MiG-21, it could out fight the F-4 with angles.  As such, I can't give any confidence in any rating and would just default to 5.

 

F-15A

The F-15A is unique as the only fighter in this list to have a better than 1:1 thrust to weight ratio at combat weight.  It has significantly better aerodynamics than the F-4E, a lifting body fuselage and large wing, which work together to give the F-15 lower wing loading once it enters a turn.  It can sustain higher "g" than an F-4 at any altitude or airspeed, out accelerate most of the fighters on this list (dependent on starting altitude/airspeed), and out pitch a good number as well at lower airspeeds.  The raw power of the engines allows the aircraft to enter into a loop at very slow speeds (~100KIAS) based on test data.  I'd give the F-15A an 8.

 

F/A-18A

The F/A-18A is one of the only aircraft on this list with a fly-by-wire control system and is renowned for its slow speed handling.  The aircraft also has good sustained turning at higher speeds and significantly better pitch authority at slower speeds than the F-4E.  I'd probably give the F/A-18 an 8 or 9.

 

F-14A

The F-14A is another fighter with a lifting body fuselage, but also features wing-length flaps and slats and the variable-geometry wing.  Its aerodynamics are excellent, and even with a loadout 2000 pounds above combat weight (over 36,000 pounds more than a MiG-21Bis with only a gun and 50% fuel), will out-sustain turn and out-pitch either the Bis or the F-4E, and will do so some 120 knots slower, meaning it will both out-rate and out-radius either aircraft.  If the Tomcat crew drops the "big boys" (wing-length flaps and slats to "landing" configuration), the aircraft gains massive pitch authority and exceptional sustained slow-speed flying capability.  This also provides an advantage against the MiG-21, which can fly at 70KIAS, nose up, flaps down - the F-14A will do the same at 60KIAS, and when a Red Eagle driver flying a MiG-21 tried this against an F-14A, since it had always worked in the past, he was quite surprised to hear the gun call when the F-14 driver did the same.  Given these performance differentials, I'd give the F-14A an 8.

 

F-8C

The Crusader is one of those aircraft for which there was inter-platform rivalry.  Generally, the F-8 drivers could beat the F-4 aircrews in a dogfight, but this was largely because the F-8 still carried four guns and short-range missiles, meaning its crews still had to train to dogfight, while the F-4's largely focused on interception and long-range shooting (a point brought up by several pilots from the Vietnam era with experience in both jets).  When F-8 pilots got into F-4's, they had little trouble defeating the F-8 by using the F-4's better power and the vertical plane; keeping the energy up, they could run their old mount out of smack and shoot it down. That said, the F-8's good insantaneous turning capability and slightly, but not significantly worse sustained turning capability still makes the F-8 a competitor against the F-4.  I'd rate it a 5.

 

F-100C

Going back to the century-series, this is one of the aircraft I'd rate lower than the F-4 due to its slow-speed instability and poor thrust to weight ratio.  While the F-4 may have been somewhat unforgiving at slow speed, it was an improvement over the F-100C (Sabre Dance, anyone?).  The F-100C's its wing loading is comparable to the F-4's, but its poor performance at slow speeds and higher angles of attack, poor sustained turning and vertical performance by comparison puts the F-100C below the Phantom. I'd give it a 3.

 

Lightning

The English Electric Lightning is another aircraft I don't know much about.  I know it was developed as an interceptor, could sustain speeds above Mach 1 without afterburner, had exceptional climb and acceleration characteristics due to a very low thrust-to-drag ratio, and comparable thrust-to-weight and wing loading to the F-4.  As such, I can't really rate it with any confidence, so given what I know I'd put it at 6 to 7.

 

Tornado ADV

The ADV was designed as an interceptor rather than a dogfighter, and even the Ministry of Defence has stated the type is not significantly superior to the Phantom in air defense.  It's wing loading is significantly worse than the F-4's at combat weight though its acceleration is superior and possibly its vertical performance.  I'd give the ADV something in the vicinity of 5.

 

Saab Viggen

I don't know too much about the Viggen, so can't assess it particularly well.  It has comparable wing loading and thrust to weight, but uses a delta wing and canards.  Based on the other deltas, it will likely out turn an F-4 instantaneously and based on its thrust to weight and wing loading, will probably sustain its turn about as well as an F-4, if not slightly better.  I'd give it a 7, but with low confidence.

 

Saab Draken

This is one of those aircraft that has very low wing loading, a fair thrust to weight ratio, and ridiculous pitch authority.  Given that its wing loading is akin to a MiG-17, but it has better thrust to weight, I'd estimate it could out-turn some of the Teen-series aircraft, like the MiG-17.  It also probably can't fight as well in the vertical, but its instantaneous turning, sustained turning and slow-speed would make the draken a powerful foe. I'd rate it a 8.

 

Kfir C7

The Kfir C7 was based on the Mirage 5, which itself was based on the Mirage III, but with some modifications, including the small canards for improved slow-speed and higher angle-of-attack performance.  It has similar wing loading and comparable thrust-to-weight at combat weight, but given that the IIIC has similar turning capabilities with worse thrust to weight and without the aerodynamic advances put into the Kfir compared to the F-4, I'd estimate the Kfir C7 is going to be a better instantaneous and sustained turner, and with similar vertical capabilities.  I'd put the Kfir C7 around 7.

 

Other aircraft for consideration would be the F-16, which I'd probably rate a 10, since it seems as though every pilot I've spoken to about their platform ALWAYS rates an F-16 as a difficult opponent.  An F-14B/D with the powerful GE engines and F-15C with the -229's I'd probably give a 9.  MiG-29 and Su-27 probably a 9.  MiG-17 a 5 or 4, since, although it may be a UFO in the ThirdWire world, pilots flying the F-4 found that exploiting the vertical plane would give them a massive advantage, and at high speeds, the -17 couldn't turn with them either.  So long as the F-4 driver didn't try to get into a slower speed turning fight, he always had an advantage.

 

 

 

Thank you for your time Caesar !

 

Long time I didn't see so detailed, (and very good) technical explanation on forums. Naturally some details you mentioned, were new to me.

 

The doubts which persist are:

 

I'm surprised you consider F-14 and F-15 roughly in the same 'category' as the F-18...

- what about the Hornet's high alpha; low wing loading; instantaneous turn rate; nose authority; slow speed control; etc, regarding the other 2 jets ?

 

Do you consider the F-16 stay's above the F-18 and MiG-29, (even if just " 1 point " ) ?

[Lexx_Luthor 57]

WOW!!! Thanks, Ceaser and Bore, very interesting.

 

I forgot 23MLD was the newer version, improved for dogfighting (just looked that up) ... thinking of the early versions that would have a place in my SF game that ends about 1973 or so. My thought process does not go much beyond that.

 

What about the Vigg?

Edited May 13, 2014 by Lexx_Luthor

[Toryu 156]

The approach of wing-loading is way too simplistic. In order to give a definitive answer to the initial question, the environmental conditions have to be constrained.

 

Mach-number and altitude have significant impacts on aircraft-performance (not just "speed" alone). Thus, maneuverability-data can not just be extrapolated by comparing wing-loading and static uninstalled engine-thrust: An F-104G (correct, the fighter-bomber version) will turn with an unslatted F-4 at 420-450 KIAS - despite it's wingloading being significantly higher.

 

The key lies in the lifting-capabilities of the wing, not just in it's planform. The Mirage F.1, for example, features pretty substantial high-lift devices (slats, LEFs and TEFs), that increase the turn-performance up to 80% over the Mirage IIIC figures (while decreasing the wing-area!) in some realms of the flight-envelope.

 

A Mirage IIIC is not in the same maneuverability-class as a late MiG-21 - unless it has canards and nose-strakes (which no Mirage IIIC ever recieved - only airframes that are based on the "E" model eventually were upgraded with those (e.g. Mirage IIIS)).

Also, a Mirage IIIC will not sustain the same load-factor in a turn as either, a MiG-21 or a Phantom. Where the Mirage wins, is instantaneous turns and low-speed flight - as well as high-altitude maneuvering.

 

REF Fly-by-Wire: It's a means of transerring control-inputs. Most people confuse it with a flight-control-computer. Talking of FBW: The F-16, F-18, Viggen and Mirage F.1 all have FBW-control transmission.

 

I'm a bit surprised about the F-100C being in the list, as it was a nuclear fighter-bomber that was way heavier than the initial fighter-version of the "Hun" - the F-100A (which in-turn was obsolete quite quickly). The Hun was a pretty straightforward aircraft as such, but flying it to max potential (as in "at high AOA"), required lots of skill and savvy by the pilot. Same is true for the MiG-19. The Super Mystère was probably a bit more tame - at the expense of performance.

[+Gepard 11,494]

My vote is for Fokker Dr.1.

[Dagger1 7]

any one has some info about the performance of mirage F-1 and SAAB viggen?

[MigBuster 2,887]

Would need to see some charts from manual supplements really - only French manual I have is for the M2K - but no performance data alas

 

From an aero point of view the Mirage F1 is missing some major features seen on modern lifting tail designs, and although it has canards the Viggen is a different design from the modern euro canards.

[Toryu 156]

The MF1 is a mid-late 1960s design (like the F-14 and F-15), and it's major role was interception. It was not specifically designed for dogfighting - it still had tremendous performance-improvements in the dogfight-realm over the Mirage III (also an interceptor by design), though.

The F.1 was initially not really planned for, as Dassault wanted to sell the much more sophisticated (and expensive) F.2 - like with the M2k and M4k about a decade later!

Budget-issues then dictated the way simpler F.1, as opposed to the two-seat F.2.

 

The major weaknes is it's engine: The ATAR-family is basicly nothing but an evolution of the WW2-vintage german BMW 003 engine. The ATAR 9 was a lower-performing engine, when compared to it's contemporaries.

 

The M53, which was a totally new "from scratch" design, was put into the Mirage F.1E, which was to compete the F-16 on the european market. The F.1E was arguably the better aircraft* (it did have actual BVR-capability right from the start), but the F-16 won through lower prices and political pressure. Hence no "hot" Mirage F.1.

 

___

* Those kinds of evaluations always depend on the requiements set in place by the different air-forces, of course. The F-16 was the more modern airframe.

Edited May 15, 2014 by Toryu

[jeanba 1,920]

According to what I read on Acig :

The Mirage F1C and Mig23MLD have basically the same maneuvrability (Mig better in vertical, Mirage in horizontal, but not by much either)

The F4E is also within the same class (but I think it is a "slatted wing version").

 

As to the comparison between Mirage F1 and Mirage III, some french pilots were not very enthousiastic and would have rather had a Mirage III with more fuel, more thrust and a better radar.

 

Check also here :

http://www.acig.info/forum/viewtopic.php?f=30&t=527

 

From Air Fan, n°96 (November 1986) on the Viggen J-37E :

Mach = 0.7, load = 2 sidexinders

Sea level : radius = 3350 m

 

6000 m : 6.3 degrees/s

 

The Saab 37E was the variant for the 1975 european bid (french name "marché du siècle") variant.

 

As a comparison : for the F16A

seal level : 1370 m radius

6000 m : 10.7 degres/s

 

(with 2 sidewinders)

 

Another information on peformances : the AJ-37 takes off in less than 400 m at a speef of 290 km/h and aOa = 13 degrees, with no load except central fuel tank.

About teh viggen :

Edited May 15, 2014 by jeanba